On 7 May 2004 at approximately 03h30, 39 gunshots were fired at a house in Bishop Lavis, Cape Flats, killing four occupants. The fifth occupant, Liezel Van Heerden (15 years old and pregnant), survived 25 gunshot wounds and identified Marco Moosa as one of the assailants. This led to the arrest and conviction of Moosa and two appellants, Kashief Naude and Garreth Solomons, for four counts of murder and one of attempted murder. Moosa and Solomons were also convicted of contravening the Firearms Control Act. Evidence showed that all three accused were together shortly before the shooting, left in Moosa's vehicle, and were implicated by multiple witnesses including Rugaya Solomons (Kashief's girlfriend) who testified they returned to her house between 05h00-05h30. Kashief made a statement admitting he drove the vehicle to the scene. A witness, Mr Orrie, testified that Garreth told him he had committed a 'massacre'. Neither Kashief nor Garreth testified in their defence.
1. The appeals by both appellants against their convictions are dismissed. 2. The appeal by the first appellant (Kashief Naude) against all sentences imposed is dismissed. Kashief's sentence of 20 years' imprisonment on each count (running concurrently) was confirmed. Garreth Solomons' sentence of life imprisonment on each of the first five counts and five years on remaining counts (concurrent) was confirmed.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) In evaluating evidence, a court must consider the totality of all evidence and account for all of it - some may be false, unreliable, or possibly false, but none may be ignored. Evidence must not be separated into compartments with the State or defence case examined in isolation. (2) When credible prosecution evidence calls for an answer and creates a prima facie case, an accused's failure to testify is almost bound to strengthen the prosecution's case. A court is unlikely to reject credible evidence which an accused has chosen not to deny. (3) The test for conviction remains that an accused is bound to be convicted if the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and must be acquitted if it is reasonably possible he might be innocent. The conclusion reached must account for all the evidence. (4) There is nothing to prevent the State from calling other evidence to contradict a witness (including one it called) on matters relevant to the issues, and the court will evaluate all evidence together applying the usual test.
The court made several important obiter observations: (1) It severely criticized the sloppy nature of the police investigation, noting forensic tests were either badly conducted or not conducted at all, and there was no excuse for not collecting vital items or sending them for proper testing. While acknowledging police resource constraints, the court emphasized this hampers efficient prosecutions. (2) The court strongly criticized the practice of including unnecessary and irrelevant portions of records in appeals, noting this was a 'recurring trend.' The court warned that if this continues, serious consideration would be given to engaging professional associations to consider appropriate sanctions, and court-imposed sanctions would also be considered. Practitioners were reminded to be careful in practice notes and ensure judges are advised to read only necessary parts of the record. (3) The court noted that on the evidence, there was nothing to suggest Kashief had not fully associated himself with the crimes, and that the trial court 'might have been too generous' in finding substantial and compelling circumstances, given the brutal nature of the murders and the surreptitious planning evident from how the vehicle was parked.
This case is significant for its comprehensive articulation of the proper approach to evaluating evidence in criminal trials. It reinforces that: (1) all evidence must be considered in totality and not in compartments (S v Van der Meyden principle); (2) courts are unlikely to reject credible evidence which an accused has chosen not to deny; (3) an accused's failure to testify in the face of prima facie evidence calling for an answer will almost inevitably strengthen the prosecution's case; (4) conflicting evidence from State witnesses does not automatically preclude conviction - the court must evaluate credibility in light of all evidence; (5) interested witnesses with motive to lie (such as romantic partners and family members) must be scrutinized carefully. The case also addresses practical issues including criticism of sloppy police investigations and inclusion of unnecessary material in appeal records.
Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate